That enthusiasm gap remains just awful for Dems

The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll came out this morning, and there's no sugar-coating it: The poll has some very grim results for Democrats. In the 92 most competitive House districts, the GOP's lead among registered voters is 14 points.

But what may be even worse are the numbers that show how bad the "enthusiasm gap" remains, with less than two weeks until election day.

NBC sends over a partisan breakdown of the two questions designed to measure voter enthusiasm, and the results are striking: The GOP leads Dems by at least 20 points on both of them.

The first question asked voters to volunteer how interested they are in November's elections, using a scale of one to ten. Among Democrats, 54 percent indicated a high interest (nine or 10) in voting. Meanwhile, 74 percent of Republicans indicated a high interest -- 20 points higher.

The second question asked: "Compared with previous elections, are you more enthusiastic about voting than usual, or less enthusiastic?" Only 47 percent of Dems said they were more enthusiastic. Meanwhile, while seventy percent of Republicans said the same -- 23 points higher.

There are a few bright spots for Dems in the poll. Barely more than a third, 34 percent, say their vote will be to register disapproval of Obama, and a majority, 52 percent, say their decision whether to vote for their Congressman will be more about his local performance than about national issues. That suggests the possibility that the election may not be as nationalized as we all think it is, giving strong Dem candidates and incumbents a better shot than expected.

But still, the enthusiasm deficit remains enormous, even though Dems have tried everything to turn this around: They've chanted Bush's name in unison for months. They've raised the specter of foreign money rigging our elections. They've floated the possibility of GOP investigations that will make the 1990s look like a latter-day Era of Good Feelings. And they've relentlessly elevated the craziest of Tea Party crazies to iconic status. Yet Dems still aren't goosed up about this election in anywhere near the numbers they need to be -- mainly because the GOP enthusiasm levels are essentially steroidal at this point.

Needless to say, there isn't really any more time to turn this around.

It amuses me that the same author who, mere weeks ago, criticized the Democrats for failing to hold a vote on the expiring tax cuts now writes that the "Dems have tried everything to turn this around."

As Ben Franklin said, experience holds a dear school but a fool will learn in no other.

Seems there are a lot of fools planning to sit this one out; they'll have the next two years to repent at leisure. Of course, many of them will remain unemployed as the Republicans they enabled by not showing up to vote pretty much grind government to a standstill but perhaps they just need more pain to get the message.

Hmmm, well, as always it will come down to GOTV, which Dems have been okay at over the last few cycles.

That said, the enthusiasm gap will make GOTV efforts difficult for Dems, obviously.

A couple of small things: 1) There are two weeks until the election, and in politics two weeks is a long time 2) No matter how enthusiastic you are you can only vote (legally) once.

I expect Dems to lose a lot of seats. Given that the Dems won seats in districts that they really shouldn't have (given historic voting patterns) how could they NOT lose seats? Waves (and wave elections) come in, but they also go out.

Regardless, if the Republicans don't win the House it will be seen as an epic fail on behalf of the GOP. They have done a terrible job at the expectation game this election cycle; anything short of a Dem shellacking will be called a Dem win this time around.

"They've relentlessly elevated the craziest of Tea Party crazies to iconic status."
================================

Michelle Bachman, Virginia Fixx, and Stephen King from Iowa are already in Congress, and are as batsh!t insane as the average bagger. (Average bagger being nothing more than a right wing republican with new branding, btw).

Wait until they actually have some authority in the House...they'll turn America off just like they did in 1998.
~

"Must explain why Sestak, Manchin, Reed, Coons and Conway are winning what should have been unattainable races this year."

LMAO!

Is there any one of those states where the Democratic Party doesn't have a sizeable edge? Talk about managing expectations: "Even if we lose this year it's really a win because we should have lost even worse!"

JennOfArk - For months Republicans have been telling us the GOP could win 100 seats. If they can't win the house the Dems will be able to...

Oh, F' it. You are probably correct. Our "liberal" media will say whatever Drudge and Fox tells it to. They are so terrified of being labeled "liberal" they would rather tongue kiss a jellyfish than be objective.

Even though the GOP has been telling us to expect the king daddy of all wave elections, if the GOP only manages to pick up 2 house seats they will probably say the GOP lived up to its electoral promises. Sad.

If Americans overwhelmingly reject the Democratic agenda like Boner likes to say when he's glistening on the teevee, wouldn't you think the Republicans would regain both houses and hold majorities like the Democrats?

ZOMG WOWZERS Soros just openly donated one million to Media Matters. That's like totally the same thing as the tens of millions being spent by the Chamber/Koch/GPS Crossroads and free airtime on the Murdoch Global Propaganda Network (MGPN).

Because only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election on Nov. 2, I think the Republicans taking control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate will still be read by most pundits as "overwhelming rejection" of the Democrats.

That this is a nearly inevitable result in a mid-term election, with a bad economy, doesn't change the fact that the media will, on Nov. 3, be proclaiming the beginning of 1,000 years of Republican rule.

@sbj "Is there any one of those states where the Democratic Party doesn't have a sizeable edge?"

Well nationally the Dems have the edge in registered voters so I presume you are talking "expectations" and blue states.

Let's begin with Delaware..the moderate R..Castle was deemed a shoe in for the R's...they had counted that one in the bank which is why Rove was so peoed when Christine O tossed the race to the Dems.
Although perhaps SBJ you believe JokeD...he still claims O'Donnell is a shoe in...to which I have to go all 12Bar on him..bwaahaahaa.

Let's move to Nev where Reid was a dead man walking until Sharron Angle breathed new life into his campaign. That was a slam dunk before Angle.

Let's head to Ky. where again the race was a slam dunk R seat until the Rand man emerged to make a race out of it.

I see Mike's original point rather than yours. As far as managing expectations isn't that pretty normal? And isn't it also true that the party that has lost the W.H. also makes solid gains during the following midterms with rare exception.

It's not the D's running around saying the R's are going to kick butt...in fact Robert Gibbs lamely suggested the D's would hold the house.
Perhaps you can blame the pundits for this one...but not the D's or their supporters.
I'm certainly bracing for the "wave" of R's and Speaker Boner...if it doesn't happen I will be very surprised...such are the expectations and C.W. I might add I'll be mighty pleased as well as surprised. :-)

It's kind of like the Rangers against the Yankees and the Giants against Phillies...C.W. was that it'd be a Philly-Yankee World Series. That C.W. is in real jeopardy right now and if it doesn't hold true again I'd be mighty happy to see a Texas-San Fran World Series.

"And, when it comes to your specific congressional representative, do you think this person is part of the
problems facing the country or do you think this person is part of the solutions? +
Part of the problem 35
Part of the solution 52"

@thunder......"Michelle Bachman, Virginia Fixx, and Stephen King from Iowa are already in Congress, and are as batsh!t insane as the average bagger."

With all due respect....no list of batshirt crazy Reps is complete without Louis Gohmert of Texas. He is truly certifiable!!!!!
The only thing more frightening than having a loon like Gohmert in Congress is trying to imagine what kind of an idiot would vote for him to begin with....probably third cousins of the same Florida inbreds who plan to vote for Rick Scott...there must be SOME reason for their mental deficiency.

For all the over-the-top whining about the costs of health care reform, the Recovery Act, and the financial industry rescue, all of those costs combined are less than the Republicans' prescription-drug bill (which was passed under corrupt circumstances, and which the GOP didn't even try to pay for). For that matter, if Republicans successfully repealed the Affordable Care Act, that would make the budget outlook even worse, since health care reform reduces the deficit.

@ruk: I suppose it depends on how far back in time you choose to go. You seem to want to go only as far back as the tea party phenomenon. When, in fact, it was only the tea party phenomenon that made any of these seats (except perhaps Kentucky) look anywhere near attainable for the GOP in the first place. And the tea party phenomenon is a direct result of Democratic policies.

In Delaware - after Biden gave up his seat it was assumed that the seat would easily be held by a Democratic in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.

In Nevada Reid has polled, at his worst, 6+ points behind Angle. But again, to assume that the majority leader, a 4-term incumbent with an enormous financial advantage would ever be in danger really is setting expectations to a laughably low degree.

You failed to mention WV, which, of course, was immediately assumed to be a shoe-in for Manchin.

To claim that Penn was somehow in the bag for Toomey is also laughable. It only became a possible pickup after Specter's implosion.

In short, all of these races with the exception of Kentucky, should have been easy Democratic holds or pickups. It was only after the amazing Tea Party movement gained strength that winning these states for the GOP even became thinkable.

Actually it might be to the Dems long term benefit if the GOP takes over the House. This economy is going to take years to pick up steam after the almost fatal destruction it suffered at the hands of the Cheney/Bush admin. Many voters, being into instant gratification, expected the impossible quick fix. Obama, Superman, nor the Messiah, can turn things around in only two years. One session of GOP House control with their inability to get anything done to help the economy will rebound against them in 2012. The GOP, the C of C, and K Street lobbyists will only have a short time to gather more loot for their corporate masters before Obama’s re-election.
When are the resident Right Wingers on this site going to wake up and smell the coffee? The country’s demographics are not in your favor, especially when it comes to presidential elections. Why be in denial?

The second question asked: "Compared with previous elections, are you more enthusiastic about voting than usual, or less enthusiastic?" Only 47 percent of Dems said they were more enthusiastic. Meanwhile, while seventy percent of Republicans said the same -- 23 points higher.
..................

Greg,

You are getting your knickers in a bunch over this?

Read it again, and stop and think for a moment. They asked Democrats if they are more enthused than they were over previous elections. 47% of Democrats said that they were more enthused. That is an astonishingly high number that stated that they are now more enthused about voting, than they were in 2008, 2006, 2004, and 2002.

Think about it man. 47% say they are more enthused than they were when they elected Obama, and swept in huge Democratic margins in The House In Senate.

Even I am not more enthused, than I was when I was working to oust the Republicans, but that does not mean a damn thing, because I am still just as committed to backing Democrats now.

If I told anyone, including Greg, back in January of 2009, that on the eve of the 2010 Midterm elections, 47% of Democratic voters will be even more excited about voting for Democrats than they are now, you all would have called for to have my blood tested, because you would have felt that enthusiasm among Democrats was at an all time high.

Yet now, here we are in late 2010, and wopping 47% of Democratic voters declare that they are even more revved up now, that they were at the same time in 2008,

And Greg starts slitting his wrists over such terrible news.

I think the poor chap must be suffering from Tea Party Stockholm Syndrome.

"They've chanted Bush's name in unison for months. They've raised the specter of foreign money rigging our elections. They've floated the possibility of GOP investigations that will make the 1990s look like a latter-day Era of Good Feelings. And they've relentlessly elevated the craziest of Tea Party crazies to iconic status."

Uh...."They've"??? A first-person personal pronoun would be more appropriate here, don't you think?

"It was only after the amazing un-electability of the tea party candidates that these races came into play."

Are you (laughably) trying to claim that Manchin was considered the underdog in WV? Or that after Biden gave up his seat it was assumed that the GOP would take it in 2010? Or that in 2009 anyone thought that Reid with his huge war chest and incumbency and with the Dems in control of both houses and the agenda would not be considered the favorite in 2010?

The Republicans want to win ONE House of Congress - yes that puts them at the table in budget and legislation negotiations.

Beyond that, the Republicans are looking at 2012, and wondering if they will be in a stronger position just a few votes shy of a majority.

With the filibuster, they still would have significant influence in the Senate without the majority. One factor to remember, in 2012 the combination of Senate races favors the Republicans. I am not sure if I fully agree, but there are some Republicans feel that putting more responsibility on Obama would place the Republicans in a stronger position in 2012.

Obama has nationalized the election and made a series of mistakes.

It is just a thought. The Republicans in Washington are just not that upset about Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. There is reasoning as well, that if there is a "wave" it will move 4 Senate seats for the Republicans - so the Republicans will win either 7 or 11 net pick-ups. The likihood of it being is the middle is slim.

Same thing with guys like Tim Kaine. He's pro-life but isn't going to try and legislate his religious beliefs.

The overwhelming diff between Dems and Repubs is Repubs will force you through laws to uphold their religious beliefs if given the chance.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 20, 2010 10:53 AM
-------

Same attitude that kept blacks in bondage for 400 years. Don't impose your religious beliefs, or any other kind of beliefs, on us Southerners. But those evil Republicans stepped in and supported the rights of blacks. Andy Johnson, a Dem, didn't like it and eventually was impeached. Hopefully, in the future, the murder of unborn infants will be regarded with the same contempt that slavery is today.

A simple question....if a person votes calmly and rationally without screaming or exhibiting any other measures of "enthusiasm" or exuberance...will it count the same as the person who voted with "enthusiasm".

I have always believed that when the real-world implications of a national sales tax is explained to real people who have trouble paying for gas and groceries, this is another idea that will go down in flames.

I don't think the issue is whether it's 34% or 23%. Hard working people can't imagine how they could pay it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 20, 2010
-------

If hard working people would have trouble, imagine what it would do to the lazy and the free-loaders.

If I told anyone, including Greg, back in January of 2009, that on the eve of the 2010 Midterm elections, 47% of Democratic voters will be even more excited about voting for Democrats than they are now, you all would have called for to have my blood tested, because you would have felt that enthusiasm among Democrats was at an all time high.

Yet now, here we are in late 2010, and wopping 47% of Democratic voters declare that they are even more revved up now, that they were at the same time in 2008,

And Greg starts slitting his wrists over such terrible news.

I think the poor chap must be suffering from Tea Party Stockholm Syndrome.

@Brigade....."the murder of unborn infants will be regarded with the same contempt that slavery is today."

By definition there is no such thing as an "unborn infant" You may wish to believe otherwise but again by DEFINITION YOU are mistaken!!!

Definition of INFANT
1: a child in the first period of life
2: a person who is not of full age : minor

fe·tusnoun \ˈfē-təs\
Definition of FETUS
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

But of course Brigade you probably also subscribe to "intelligent design" "creationism" or some other completely UNSCIENTIFIC RELIGIOUS belief. And you wonder why people fear Christians in office? It couldn't be because eyou all try to force YOUR beliefs down OUR throats without a shred of science and made up expressions could it?

The Chamber Of Con Artists is for Outsourcing Jobs to where they can take advantage of cheap foreign labor, and no environmental regulations. They also insist on being granted tax breaks for all such outsourcing of American jobs.

@Brigade: "Hopefully, in the future, the murder of unborn infants will be regarded with the same contempt that slavery is today."

+++++++++

Murder, you say? So in your preferred world, a pregnant woman who knowingly and intentionally arranges to have an abortion is committing murder in exactly the same manner as if she hired an assassin to kill her husband, and should be locked up for years and years. Or do you favor the death penalty for murderers?

The right wingers must have succeeded in making me paranoid. Even though my wife and I could vote early by mail here as well..we always wait and show up at the polls...I don't know why I don't think an election could get stolen at the polls any easier than grabbing a pile of mail.

BTW....This enthusiasm story is finally starting to run out of steam because elections are ALREADY STARTING.

@Greg....You on paper ran a great editorial about this meme today...why not link to that as part of this story as well as the WSJ/NBC numbers.

"This is the big test election to see if voter mobilization really has an effect on turnout." said Michael McDonald, a George Mason University government professor who has tracked early voting for several election cycles. "And at least according to the very earliest early-voting numbers, people who thought the Democrats were going to roll over and play dead, that's not what's happening."

Don't worry Greg. The polls aren't reflecting yet the inroads made by the foreign donors campaign issue among likely voters. This will surely cause heavy participation at the last minute, since it is an issue that hits the wallets of every single American, unlike health care, mortgage foreclosures, Afghanistan, and unemployment.

greg- does it bother you that so many of your readers seem certifiably silly? they actually think the media is conservative? they seem to think evil foreigners are controlling voters? all the dems have left, having alienated most independents like myself with their wacky hard left pelosi/obama/reid agenda, is gutter name calling, and negative personal attacks. the last two years, like the early bush years, are a lesson as to why one party should never control everything!

Yes indeed. The Wall St. Journal. Fox TV, and all the rest of Murdoch's Media Empire are hot beds of Liberalism. So is most of talk radio. In fact I am pretty sure that Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly are really communists.

I am not sure what the results of the Nov 2 election will be....guessing the House will be Republican...the Senate, that will be close. Still, the message to the Democrats and Obama should be there...the progressive agenda is not what most Americans want.

Will be curious to read the "spin" by liberals/progressives/msm on November 3. They have done a fantastic job of insulting America because we don't agree with their agenda....what will they do when they start to lose seats in the Senate, the House, Govenors, and state legislators??? Will all of those Americans be considered stupid, racist, and did not appreciate "science and facts"?

America was fair-minded and non-racist by electing a black man President. He has broken the promises voters trusted him with, went against the will of the people, and in general made a buffoon of himself by traveling everywhere for three speeches and applause per week. As they say down south, it's like poor white folks come to town, only worse.
.

I'm an independent voter...voted for Clinton twice, Bush once and Obama....I and similarly minded friends will walk over glass on our knees to vote the democrats out...if only to atone for our terrible, terrible mistake 2 yrs ago.

1. "The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll came out this morning, and there's no sugar-coating it:"

Usually a person sugarcoats news to that side of a dispute they favor, as in "I would really prefer to be able to present this in a good light for you, but I can not" Clearly, Sargent sides with the Democrats.

2. "Yet Dems still aren't goosed up about this election in anywhere near the numbers they need to be ..."?

Is there some objective "need" for the Democrats to be goosed up about this election? Not at all! Only if you are a huge fan of Democrats do you feel a need to have them goosed up.

Biased authors are so pre-post-partisan!

What value is there really in a newspaper that feels the need to tell us what it believes? Isn't that like a telephone that comes alive, and starts interrupting my calls with its own ideas. Excuse me! I would much prefer you be a conduit as opposed to a source.

They tried chanting Bush (even though Dems in congress caused the mortgage crisis and economic meltdown), they tried foreign money (even though the Dems take more), they tried the specter of investigations (even though Obama has been on the warpath threatening anyone who does not agree with him).

Perhaps Dems should run on the issues: lower taxes, lower deficit, less regulation, strengthen business to add investment and create jobs....oh yeah Dems don't believe in any of this...perhaps they should just go back to bashing Bush!

They tried chanting Bush (even though Dems in congress caused the mortgage crisis and economic meltdown), they tried foreign money (even though the Dems take more), they tried the specter of investigations (even though Obama has been on the warpath threatening anyone who does not agree with him).

Perhaps Dems should run on the issues: lower taxes, lower deficit, less regulation, strengthen business to add investment and create jobs....oh yeah Dems don't believe in any of this...perhaps they should just go back to bashing Bush!

Dems can whistle in the graveyard all they want. The universal opinion of reputable, neutral pollsters (not average opinion or consensus opinion, mind you, but _universal_ opinion) is that the Dems will lose the House.

The only significant question is by how much they will lose it.

So, either the entire roster of reputable pollsters is wrong, in which case the polling industry will collapse to dust on Nov 3, or the Dems are indeed going to suffer a historic humiliation.

My guess is it's the latter. We are 13 days out from a not-even-close election, folks. Contending the Dems can still pull it out is as delusional as someone saying in late October, 2008, "Yeah, I think McCain can still win this."

And Mr. Sargent does not say it, but I will: the Dems lost the House when they followed their "stimulus" bill with their "healthcare reform bill," thus poking the eyes of the voters twice, all of which proceeded Mr. Biden preaching to us about a "Recovery Summer" which ended up looking a lot like a renewed recession.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama, who promised fiscal responsibility in 2008, ran up, by a factor 3-4, government deficits far larger than those he promised to rectify. And while he was doing this, he was effectively instituting a non-accountable executive branch through his network of unconfirmed (and unconfirmable) "czars."

And as if all that was not bad enough, Obama has shown himself openly contemptuous of any American who disagrees with him. We are not "thinking clearly," he said this week.

And this so-called "postracial" president makes explicit appeals for race-conscious voting.

Well, we unclear-thinkers are going to stumble to the polls in 13 days and give his party a pasting for the ages, and if he does not mend his arrogant ways, we shall remove his presence from public office altogether in 2012.

One commenter wrote: "47% of Democrats say they are more fired up now, than they were two years ago. How is that supposed to be bad news?"

This misapplies Sargent's point, which was comparative with the 73 percent of Republicans who are more fired up.

Moreover, this is a midterm year and we're talking about the House. Because Dem voters tend to be concentrated in urban centers, the Dems have a huge vote-distribution problem. They're strongest where being so strong does not matter, and they are borderline or weak where they need to be strong. The vote-distribution problem does not apply to state-wide races, but it's decisive in House races.

Hence, as Sargent relates: "In the 92 most competitive House districts, the GOP's lead among registered voters is 14 points."

This is why Obama's effort to fire up black voters, et al, is doomed to failure except as a marginal palliative. The districts in play are dominated by white and independent voters.

And white and independent voters are going to go GOP this time by a healthy margin.

In other words, the Democratic base (i.e., liberals, minorities, and people who live off the taxpayers) is much too small and poorly distributed to make a difference. To win you need the independents. And the Dems lost them sometime in the summer of 2009.

Greg, When you use the word "they" you make it sound as if you are some distant observer.

"..Dems have tried everything to turn this around: They've chanted Bush's name in unison for months. They've raised the specter of foreign money rigging our elections. They've floated the possibility of GOP investigations that will make the 1990s look like a latter-day Era of Good Feelings. And they've relentlessly elevated the craziest of Tea Party crazies to iconic status...."

Must explain why Sestak, Manchin, Reed, Coons and Conway are winning what should have been unattainable races this year.

Posted by: mikefromArlington
**********

I guess by "Reed" you mean "Reid". In any event, each of the candidates you mention are losing (Sestak might be tied) except for Coons, which even in a year like this should be an unattainable seat for Republicans. Of course there is a reason why thee Dems are winning it, because the R's nominated someone who is not a good fit for the state (O'Donnell instead of Castle).

So some pollster-paid by corporate funds-contacts 1000 people out of 310 million and then tells all us non-Tea Baggers that we are not excited. Obviously, The corporate MSM bosses are a little more concerned today that the American voters might actually be able to make up their own minds.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.